Gay marriage and the law

This is just you projecting your personal bias onto society. In the UK we have civil partnerships for same-sex couples (a clumsy compromise IMO), yet there has never been a worse time to be a British paedophile. They are regarded as the lowest of the low, and that is a trend that shows no sign of stopping, four years on from the first civil partnership. Same-sex marriage has been recognised for eight years in the Netherlands, and for nearly two decades in Denmark. Neither state shows any inclination to legalise paedophilia. Perhaps you would like to eat your words in Danish.
In truth, the two topics are unrelated, save that you revile them both in seemingly equal measure.

---

Mutate and Survive

I wish! You are of course free to your opinion, you just shouldn't be able to oppose your opinion on others. You can marry the love of your life, but gay people can't? That is clearly discriminatory. Nevertheless, child abuse remains illegal in Denmark, and those sailors are more likely to be greeted with revulsion than mass demonstrations of public support, so your prediction is looking pretty shaky. I like your photo by the way. Which one is you?

---

Mutate and Survive

Hi Nem, An emotive argument? What, you mean like comparing homosexuality to paedophilia? Why on earth do you link to the North American Man-Boy Love Association to talk about Wilde? Do you get a lot of your reference material from paedophile websites, or do you just want to give NAMBLA a few extra hits? FYI Wilde's boyfriend was a fully grown man at the time of the comments on your linked page. The Wilde quote exclusively mentions "a younger man", not a child. He is talking about young men, not children. Actually, Wilde is an excellent example of how oppression of homosexuals harms society. Wilde was a married man, living a lie, a situation that was hardly fair on his long-suffering wife. If there had been gay marriage back then, this ugly charade would not have been necessary.
The point is that you would seek to deny a whole raft of people a chance at happiness. What possible business is it of yours if two people want to make a public statement of love for one another? Why should you have the right to interfere? Why can't you just be happy for them? I'm sure that homosexuality was illegal in Denmark once. The fact remains that the Danish experience proves your paedophile prediction wrong. You said you would be happy to be wrong. Why no celebration? I wish. They look like they're having a lot of fun, engaging in a bit of harmless dressing up (or dressing down). Why is that such a threat to you?

---

Mutate and Survive

Hi CS,
I can't agree with you when you say that laws against gay marriage are not discriminatory. Heterosexuals have a chance of finding a partner that they love and making a public statement of that love, in marriage. Homosexuals don't. Clear discrimination. It amounts to "anyone can marry who they like, so long as my religion says it's OK". I thought that kind of thing was unconstitutional in the States.
Of course homosexuals could marry a partner of the opposite sex, but what is the point in that? These sham marriages are disasters. Waving this option in the face of gay people is deeply patronising, as it is a non-option.
Anyone can marry their chosen partner except for homosexuals. How do you work out that there's no discrimination there?
By the way, your point about hermaphrodites in Message 38 is a valid one, despite the semi-serious way you bring it up. Should intersex people be barred from marriage? There a lot more out there than you might think.

---

Mutate and Survive

NJ, Are you seriously telling us that you can see no moral distinction between the rape of a child and a consensual sexual act between two mature and responsible adults? I can't believe that you need this spelled out for you.
Rape is wrong because it is an act of violence, which wins selfish pleasure for the perpetrator at the expense of the pain and suffering of the non-consenting victim.
Child abuse is wrong because it is simply rape inflicted upon children who are to young to give meaningful consent in any case.
It is harder IMO to make a moral case against incest. There is however, a strong practical impediment, in that incestuous relationships increase the risk of birth abnormalities in any offspring.
With morality for dummies out of the way, perhaps you would like to explain how any of these objections to rape, child abuse and incest apply to consensual homosexual love-making. Note that if all you can manage is "The Bible says it's wrong" then don't expect any US courtroom to listen to you.

---

Mutate and Survive

CS, Nope, it's because I hold a different opinion to you. You aren't going to win an argument by implying that I am ignorant. I don't need your painfully obvious definition. As has already been made clear, that is only one possible interpretation. There are many others. We have civil partnerships in the UK and the sky has not fallen. {AbE} If the wording of the law is a problem then change it. This is not an insurmountable problem.{/AbE} Of course homosexuals are excluded from marriage. If the only marriage option is heterosexual, it is simply not an option for homosexuals. It would be torturous for a homosexual to enter into a heterosexual marriage. The point you keep dodging is that heterosexuals have the chance of a happy marriage. Homosexuals don't because the kind of marriage which could make them happy is not legal. Does that sound enough like:

quote:

---

treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit
  —Dictionary.com

---

{AbE} It is not necessary to treat people differently to discriminate against them. It is perfectly possible for two groups of people to be treated the same, but get different end results. Example; The government announces a $20 tax rebate for all citizens. The only condition is that you have to attend a particular office to get the rebate. The office is at the top of a tall building and, since there is no elevator, you must climb ten flights of stairs t get there.
Everyone in this example is being treated the same, but there is an obvious inequality. Without wheelchair access, the system is discriminating against the disabled. They can't get up the stairs, they don't get their $20.They are being treated the same as the able bodied, but there is a different and unfair end result. Thus, they are being discriminated against. Every time you see a wheelchair access ramp in a public place, you are seeing the kind of action needed to avoid discrimination through inflexibility.{/AbE} That is precisely the problem. Marriage to the opposite sex is great for most, but hopeless for many. Insisting that there can only be one definition of marriage destroys peoples right to pursue happiness in that area. Clear discrimination. What is disingenuous is attempting to pretend that the problem with gay marriage is the definition of marriage, or some other legal nicety. We all know why this is so upsetting to you and NJ; it's your religiously inspired prejudice. Plain and simple discrimination.Edited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.

---

Mutate and Survive